Index of /tif
On June 11, 2009 Kotis Properties, INC. (Plaintiff) VS. City of Greensboro and Horsepen Village Commercial, LLC (Defendants) with a case # 09-CVS-8185
The Plaintiff, Kotis Properties, INC. complaining of defendants City of Greensboro and Horsepen Village Commercial, LLC. a Roy Carroll Company, pursuant to the provisions of the North Carolina Uniform Declaratory Judgment Act, N.C. Gen. Stat. 1-253 et seq., N.C. Gen.Stat. 1-A-1, Rule 57, seeks a Declaratory Judgment from this court regarding the construction and application of Greensboro City Ordinance 30-6-13.3(e), as well as a writ of Mandamus and Injunctive Relief. In support of it's request, Plaintiff shows the court the following.
If you want to see the whole documents please click on the title above or CLICKHERE then start with document 8 then go down to 2 in succession.
This court case will show you plenty on why we don't need to have local developer Roy Carroll flying the Mayor of Greensboro and Chairman of the Guilford County Board of Commissioners to D.C. for ethical and other reasons.
During the time of this plane trip to D.C. we have a developer in Kotis Properties taking to court both the City of Greensboro and one of Roy Carroll's companies in Horsepen Village Commercial LLC. Did anyone want to tell us about this situation? This was filed with the court back on June 11, 2009 while the dust up on the ethical lapses of judgement on the plane ride to D.C. didn't come to light till around June 30, 2009, CLICKHERE for that story.
On July 8, 2009 the defendant Horsepen Village Commercial (HVC) a Roy Carroll Company asked and was granted a extension till the end of this month or around the August 12, 2009 from lawyer H.Arthur Bolick II from Brooks Pierce Law firm which happens to be the same law firm that the City of Greensboro uses as well and this firm has billed the City of Greensboro $368,305.62 on numerous cases the city is involved with in the past year.
This whole situation can be traced back to the zoning case on April 14, 2008 CLICKHERE then proceed to the video, below is the minutes from this zoning case from the opposition to this development.The zoning case starts at the 1:42 mark of the video on april 14, 2008.
Speaking in opposition to the request were Chuck Winfree, Patrick Harman and Marty Kotis, who stated that area residents are very concerned about the added traffic congestion and safety issues related to that for this area. They feel that there is already a lot of density in this area and the proposed plans will only add to that. There is concern about the noise cone relative to the airport and the added air traffic by the addition of the FedEx facility. They feel
that the proposed zoning is inconsistent with the land use map and Connections 2025, which calls for low residential use in this area. There is already a plot of land just south that is an office complex that was rezoned a few years ago so there is no need for more office space. There is already a lot of new development along Horse Pen Creek Road with 5 new subdivisions since 2003 and one large complex. They feel it is not necessary for another large development in this area. They also do not feel that the conditions attached to the request do not substantially address the safety and welfare of the surrounding residents. They also do not feel that the proposed sports complex is very attractive and does not lend itself to improvement in the area.
In the court case filed on June 11, 2009 the actual controversy exists between Kotis and the City with respect to the City's approval of a road to be built in violation of Greensboro City ordinance 30-6-13.3 which states "Reserve strips adjoining street rights of way for the purpose of preventing access to adjacent property shall not be permitted under any condition. The area in question is at the intersection of Horsepen Creek Road and Jessup Grove Road CLICKHERE
This whole court case has some interesting facts or as a anon post wants me to say in allegations . If you go to scan item #6, here is a few of the points made in the court case.
22. The plan submitted by defendant, and subsequently approved by the city, calls not only for the placement of a "reserve strip" on the property, but also for lanes that are narrower than are ordinarily allowed. Plaintiff alleges upon information and belief that the reason the lanes were decreased in width was to allow the reserve strip to be installed.
23. Upon information and belief, the City intends to allow the road to be built with the reserve strip. The city, through it's Technical Review Committee (TRC), conditionally approved Horsepen Village Commercial(HVC) plan to install the reserve strip on April 14, 2009. Plaintiff alleges upon information and belief that the approval by TRC was the result of Carroll's exertion of political influence over the planning staff, board members, and members of the Greensboro City Council.
25. Upon information and belief, other entities under Carroll's control have a pattern and practice of illegally denying access to public rights of way in attempts to extort money or other business advantage from adjacent property owners. In particular:
A. Despite the requirements of Greensboro's ordinances , Carroll through one of his companies, failed and refused to complete a section of Winding Creek Drive that would have allowed access to a competing developer.
B. Carroll's companies have also illegally denied access in other ways to be proven at trial.
We will see what happens at trial and there are some huge findings of facts especially at the end of #23. But to see what we have been talking about in the past few weeks in that there should be no circumstance where a local developer who comes in front of councils and commissions to be flying the Mayor of Greensboro and the chairman of the Guilford County Board of Commissioners to D.C. for any reason. Especially when we find out that there was a superior court case filed in the courthouse where both a developer and city are defendants in a court case . Was the Greensboro City Attorney's office going to let us know about this case while the ethical questions were out there to be answered?
Documents in court case in a scribd CLICKHERE